Military plans would put women in most combat jobs

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,037
27,610
898
Seattle
#1
Military plans would put women in most combat jobs

By LOLITA C. BALDOR | Associated Press – 7 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Military leaders are ready to begin tearing down the remaining walls that have prevented women from holding thousands of combat and special operations jobs near the front lines.

Under details of the plans obtained by The Associated Press, women could start training as Army Rangers by mid-2015 and as Navy SEALs a year later.

The military services have mapped out a schedule that also will include reviewing and possibly changing the physical and mental standards that men and women will have to meet in order to quality for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Under the plans to be introduced Tuesday, there would be one common standard for men and women for each job.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reviewed the plans and has ordered the services to move ahead.

The move follows revelations of a startling number of sexual assaults in the armed forces. Earlier this year, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said the sexual assaults might be linked to the longstanding ban on women serving in combat because the disparity between the roles of men and women creates separate classes of personnel — male "warriors" versus the rest of the force.

While the sexual assault problem is more complicated than that, he said, the disparity has created a psychology that lends itself to disrespect for women.

Under the schedules military leaders delivered to Hagel, the Army will develop standards by July 2015 to allow women to train and potentially serve as Rangers, and qualified women could begin training as Navy SEALs by March 2016 if senior leaders agree. Military leaders have suggested bringing senior women from the officer and enlisted ranks into special forces units first to ensure that younger, lower-ranking women have a support system to help them get through the transition.

The Navy intends to open up its Riverine force and begin training women next month, with the goal of assigning women to the units by October. While not part of the special operations forces, the coastal Riverine squadrons do close combat and security operations in small boats. The Navy plans to have studies finished by July 2014 on allowing women to serve as SEALs, and has set October 2015 as the date when women could begin Navy boot camp with the expressed intention of becoming SEALs eventually.

U.S. Special Operations Command is coordinating the matter of what commando jobs could be opened to women, what exceptions might be requested and when the transition would take place.

The proposals leave the door open for continued exclusion of women from some jobs if research and testing find that women could not be successful in sufficient numbers. But the services would have to defend such decisions to top Pentagon leaders.

Army officials plan to complete gender-neutral standards for the Ranger course by July 2015. Army Rangers are one of the service's special operations units, but many soldiers who go through Ranger training and wear the coveted tab on their shoulders never actually serve in the 75th Ranger Regiment. To be considered a true Ranger, soldiers must serve in the regiment.

In January, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Dempsey signed an order that wiped away generations of limits on where and how women could fight for their country. At the time, they asked the services to develop plans to set the change in motion.

The decision reflects a reality driven home by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where battle lines were blurred and women were propelled into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers who were sometimes attached, but not formally assigned, to battalions. So even though a woman could not serve officially as a battalion infantryman going out on patrol, she could fly a helicopter supporting the unit or be part of a team supplying medical aid if troops were injured.

Of the more than 6,700 U.S. service members who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, about 150 have been women.

The order Panetta and Dempsey signed prohibits physical standards from being lowered simply to allow women to qualify for jobs closer to the battlefront. But the services are methodically reviewing and revising the standards for many jobs, including strength and stamina, in order to set minimum requirements for troops to meet regardless of their sex.

The military services are also working to determine the cost of opening certain jobs to women, particularly aboard a variety of Navy ships, including certain submarines, frigates, mine warfare and other smaller warships. Dozens of ships do not have adequate berthing or facilities for women to meet privacy needs, and would require design and construction changes.

Under a 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines, and they often included top command and support staff.

Last year the military opened up about 14,500 combat positions to women, most of them in the Army, by allowing them to serve in many jobs at the battalion level. The January order lifted the last barrier to women serving in combat, but allows the services to argue to keep some jobs closed.

The bulk of the nearly 240,000 jobs currently closed to women are in the Army, including those in infantry, armor, combat engineer and artillery units that are often close to the battlefront. Similar jobs in the Marine Corps are also closed.

Army officials have laid out a rolling schedule of dates in 2015 to develop gender-neutral standards for specific jobs, beginning with July for engineers, followed by field artillery in March and the infantry and armor jobs no later than September.

Women make up about 14 percent of the 1.4 million active U.S. military personnel. More than 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or neighboring nations in support of the wars.
http://news.yahoo.com/military-plans-put-women-most-combat-jobs-180430171.html
 

tattered

Uber-Aryan
Wackbag Staff
Aug 22, 2002
24,294
8,613
918
JERZ
#2
Great lower the standards for women so they can get in. Awesome idea. Youre going to get them and their squad mates killed
 

HandPanzer

O Tempora O Mores!
May 30, 2013
46,608
42,237
293
#3
Great lower the standards for women so they can get in. Awesome idea. Youre going to get them and their squad mates killed
And that's how you sum up the feminist movement kids.
 

Mags

LDAR, bitch.
Donator
Oct 22, 2004
35,487
12,214
693
Ill Repute
#4
So can I stop holding doors for them now?
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,789
1,347
693
#7
Great lower the standards for women so they can get in. Awesome idea. Youre going to get them and their squad mates killed
Yep!

If a woman can hack it to the same standards a man in the same career field has to meet, then welcome on board. If she can't, she needs to find a new MOS.

Sent from the USS Sulaco.
 

tattered

Uber-Aryan
Wackbag Staff
Aug 22, 2002
24,294
8,613
918
JERZ
#8
Yep!

If a woman can hack it to the same standards a man in the same career field has to meet, then welcome on board. If she can't, she needs to find a new MOS.

Sent from the USS Sulaco.
Soon as I read that they are going revamp the standards I said everyone in a squad with a woman who only meets the new standards is as good as dead
 

Discoman

Well-Known Member
Donator
Feb 21, 2010
2,124
1,447
343
New York
#10
The order Panetta and Dempsey signed prohibits physical standards from being lowered simply to allow women to qualify for jobs closer to the battlefront. But the services are methodically reviewing and revising the standards for many jobs, including strength and stamina, in order to set minimum requirements for troops to meet regardless of their sex.
So they aren't changing standards based on sex, they're lowering it for everything and everybody? Doesn't that go against the idea of having an 'elite' force?
 
Apr 30, 2011
35,542
94,030
358
CLT
#11
Didn't Gaddafi have an elite force of women bodyguards, worked out good for him right?

 

tattered

Uber-Aryan
Wackbag Staff
Aug 22, 2002
24,294
8,613
918
JERZ
#12
So they aren't changing standards based on sex, they're lowering it for everything and everybody? Doesn't that go against the idea of having an 'elite' force?
Basically they are lowering them to get woman in but saying they arent because its also going to allow men that would be considered a liability as well. This is going to get a lot of good soldiers killed. The standards are high for a reason. If being a liability meant only getting your head blown off standards would of been dropped 75yrs ago but it doesn't. Not only is your head going to be taken off but half of your squad mates as well trying to keep your stupid ass alive and then the rest of your squad trying to save the people that got killed trying to save you from getting killed.
WE ARE DOOMED MILITARILY IF THIS GOES THRU
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,218
12,972
438
Atlanta, GA
#13
So they aren't changing standards based on sex, they're lowering it for everything and everybody? Doesn't that go against the idea of having an 'elite' force?
Basically they are lowering them to get woman in but saying they arent because its also going to allow men that would be considered a liability as well. This is going to get a lot of good soldiers killed. The standards are high for a reason. If being a liability meant only getting your head blown off standards would of been dropped 75yrs ago but it doesn't. Not only is your head going to be taken off but half of your squad mates as well trying to keep your stupid ass alive and then the rest of your squad trying to save the people that got killed trying to save you from getting killed. WE ARE DOOMED MILITARILY IF THIS GOES THRU
It doesn't say anything about lowering any of the requirements. Here's the quote again.
The order Panetta and Dempsey signed prohibits physical standards from being lowered simply to allow women to qualify for jobs closer to the battlefront. But the services are methodically reviewing and revising the standards for many jobs, including strength and stamina, in order to set minimum requirements for troops to meet regardless of their sex.
It says that they're reviewing and revising shit in order to make sure that they have a minimum requirement in place. That could end up being a lowered standard, but as it stands now, it seems like they have no intention of lowering the standards. In fact, they're keeping exclusion as an option.
The proposals leave the door open for continued exclusion of women from some jobs if research and testing find that women could not be successful in sufficient numbers. But the services would have to defend such decisions to top Pentagon leaders.
If they lower the standards, I'll be right there with you condemning it, but until then, stop with the fearmongering and just observe.
 

tattered

Uber-Aryan
Wackbag Staff
Aug 22, 2002
24,294
8,613
918
JERZ
#14
It doesn't say anything about lowering any of the requirements. Here's the quote again.

It says that they're reviewing and revising shit in order to make sure that they have a minimum requirement in place. That could end up being a lowered standard, but as it stands now, it seems like they have no intention of lowering the standards. In fact, they're keeping exclusion as an option.

If they lower the standards, I'll be right there with you condemning it, but until then, stop with the fearmongering and just observe.
If they lower a single standard they fucked up. The standards are low enough as it is
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#15
Women physically can't do SEAL training. If they get in, it'll be lowered standards.
 

Ballbuster1

In The Danger Zone...
Wackbag Staff
Aug 26, 2002
103,506
16,821
919
Your house, behind the couch
#16
Great lower the standards for women so they can get in. Awesome idea. Youre going to get them and their squad mates killed
Why not? They've been doing it for years with
minorities for cop and firemen positions.

This fucking country is doomed and it's PC mentality
will be the driving factor.
 

lajikal

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
16,155
3,896
373
#17
So more women, but less ****? DOOMED!
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,218
12,972
438
Atlanta, GA
#18
Women physically can't do SEAL training.
Most men can't either. Statistically, in a nation of hundreds of millions, there has to be a few women that can and we could use them. They should at least be allowed to try. What annoys me the most about women in combat stories is that it's such an easy "problem" to solve; just throw the door open. The ones who can do it become SEALs/Rangers/Delta operators/whatever and the ones that can't don't. The problem literally solves itself. The only thing that needs addressing is the sexual harassment problem.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#19
Most men can't either. Statistically, in a nation of hundreds of millions, there has to be a few women that can and we could use them. They should at least be allowed to try. What annoys me the most about women in combat stories is that it's such an easy "problem" to solve; just throw the door open. The ones who can do it become SEALs/Rangers/Delta operators/whatever and the ones that can't don't. The problem literally solves itself. The only thing that needs addressing is the sexual harassment problem.

I agree, and most of the callers I had today also agree. However, we know how these things ALWAYS go. They will lower standards.
 

gleet

What's black and white and red all over?
Jul 24, 2005
22,541
13,853
608
Idaho
#20
Most men can't either. Statistically, in a nation of hundreds of millions, there has to be a few women that can and we could use them. They should at least be allowed to try. What annoys me the most about women in combat stories is that it's such an easy "problem" to solve; just throw the door open. The ones who can do it become SEALs/Rangers/Delta operators/whatever and the ones that can't don't. The problem literally solves itself. The only thing that needs addressing is the sexual harassment problem.
Throw the doors open and hope the one in a million gals who can do the training is actually in the Navy, has an interest in being a SEAL, and fits the time frame in her enlistment to qualify. Trouble is, the Navy still needs SEALs so while the works are gummed up with hundreds of GI Janes who think they can do it, right up to the point where the instructors make them dump beach sand in their OD Green panties, real male warriors are left out of training to make room for the failures. Each class will graduate fewer warriors and have higher dropout rates, but the need for SEALs stays high.

Maybe have a female SEAL pre-qualifying class that is tough but fast to weed out the obvious wannabes before they fill the ranks of applicants.
 

tattered

Uber-Aryan
Wackbag Staff
Aug 22, 2002
24,294
8,613
918
JERZ
#21
I agree, and most of the callers I had today also agree. However, we know how these things ALWAYS go. They will lower standards.
Which is what I'm saying. I dont care if they let women apply. I care if they lower the standards (which you know they will) because it will get people unnessessarily.
 

jimmyslostchin

Malarkey is slang for bullshit isn't it?
Jun 8, 2005
2,331
50
313
NJ
#22
They've tried this in the Marines already, albeit with a smaller group, infantry officers. Few female volunteers, and the ones they got washed out. How long before the discrimination lawsuit when the first female Ranger is RFSed?
 

NuttyJim

Registered User
Feb 18, 2006
14,064
6,383
638
#23
No bitch can do a 4G negative dive while on the rag.